About your Search

20130201
20130228
STATION
MSNBCW 28
LANGUAGE
English 28
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)
does this leave him? assume that he gets confirmed, he has to be a tough -- a tough guy at the pentagon. he is going to be tough with congress. he has to deal with the potential of the sequester, fighting for the budget that he does get, dealing with all of the problems that come at you when you are in charge of the pentagon and the generals and the other members of the joint chiefs are going to feel they can run over him. >> we'll see about that. i assume that every general with any number of stars was watching intently yesterday, and might have had that thought in mind. you said another important word, which is sequester. it's going to be a huge mess over there trying to, first, anticipate this, and then deal with whatever the new reality is. i do think that it was ugly yesterday. it was ugly on both sides. the white house wasn't so much from what i heard defending his performance as saying that those mean republicans also performed in an ugly and bad and not very attractive way. i don't think anybody looked particularly good in that showdown. i also think it's very clear that this is
senator from a red state, a decorated and wounded combat veteran nominated to lead the pentagon while we are at war. republicans have never before felt the need to filibuster a cabinet member in the history of the country but apparently now this is the time and this is the guy worth waiting 224 years to spring it on. it has never happened before, but why not now? heck. the white house is not pleased. "today's action runs against both the majority will of the senate and our nation's interest. this waste of time is not without consequence. we have 66,000 men and women deployed in afghanistan, and we need our new secretary of defense to be a part of significant decisions about how we bring that war to a responsible end. next week in brussels, the united states will meet with our allies to talk about the transition in afghanistan at the nato defense ministerial, and our next secretary of defense should be there. for the sake of national security, it's time to stop playing politics with our department of defense and to move beyond the distractions and delay. allow this war hero an up or down
on the back as many people stated down in newtown. i'm here to speak up for my son. >>> at the pentagon, chuck hagel finally takes over as defense chief. >> i will do everything in my power to be the kind of leader that you expect and you deserve. also, the kind of leader the country expects and deserves. >>> john kerry takes paris. [ speaking foreign language ] >> not bad at all. good day, i'm andrea mitchell in washington in english today. the historic voting rights act could be in danger as a number of supreme court justices overturned the 1965 law. nbcs justice correspondent pete williams joins me now from the supreme court. pete, from the arguments today, what is your impression of what way the court might be moving? >> well, you know, the court didn't come with a blank slate. four years ago, the court looked at the same question and laid down a marker. we were watching to see if the justices that were skeptical then changed their mind? the answer is no. five votes to strike down a key part of the voting rights act. it's a law that requires states with a history of discrimination to get p
to the staff at the pentagon since taking office early this morning. hagel was sworn in at a private ceremony after an unusually tough confirmation fight, which ended in a 58-41 vote. hagel overcame a republican-led filibuster by members of his own party who never forgave his criticism of the iraq war. let me bring in republican strategist and former santorum senior strategist and nbc col n columnist and contributing editor for the hill. good morning. he has to confront a staggering $46 billion in cuts to military spending which are set to begin tomorrow. he's got his work cut out for him. >> he really does. part of the reason the president selected chuck hagel was knowing going forward the defense department would have to undergo cuts anyhow. obviously the sequester makes that a lot tougher process because it is, you know, these cuts are much less strategic obviously than what we would have preferred. he also comes in after having a tough few weeks, a little bloodied i think and some of that was intended not so much to go after hagel but to try to go after the president and, thankfully, the
only five or six days ago that he was still -- the pentagon still wants him to take that position. he was temporarily sidelined by an inquiry into whether they were inappropriate emails between him and jill kelly, the tampa woman involved in the whole petraeus situation, and then he was cleared of any wrong doing by the pentagon. >> you know, we're told now that this -- i mean, this is a sad episode. we're told he did not want to come to -- his family would be involved, and he would have to answer questions. >> you know, draen, i think this shows you that even when you are cleared now the damage done. it's -- it seems hard for me to believe that if the whole jill kelly episode hpt ever aired publicly, that he would have decided he would have wanted to step aside. it seemed like he was on the fast track to get that job. these things -- i think what everyone forgets, this is true with military, this is true with particularly at that level, and it's absolutely true of politicians. these people are people. the focus of the coverage of these emails got lots and lots of attention. the focus
, that this sequester is -- because of its sort of blunder bust approach that it does not permit the pentagon to make intelligent choices about what is needed, so it is going to get to readiness. ready city council what we need. >> this is the absurdness of washington. >> the white house proposed the -- >> proposing to get agreement on this. now the new strategy is, yeah, but you can't let that sequester happen because the spending cuts would be so awful when, in fact, there are democrats like dick durbin who will be on the program sunday who have said he doesn't really have a problem with the amount of spending cuts in the pentagon. it's a matter of how you go about doing it. republicans i think also have some leverage here by saying, you know, if you really get us down to it, if have to swallow these spending cuts, we're going take them because that might be good. you got your revenues there. zoolt sequester, we don't like it, but before it on. >> there's a lot of pain. particularly if are you from virginia and you have military cuts coming down your way, this is tough. spending cuts are tough. the
? >> at the pentagon. >> this is the first time hearing of this. when did this happen? did they make this decision on the cruise ship? >> no. no, they didn't. it actually happened in washington. >> really? that's fascinating. >> which is its own permanent port-a-potty. >> okay. mika, for those of us that were just sitting there looking at a cruise ship for 24 hours instead of following the real news, why don't you catch us up with what actually happened yesterday in the news. >> republicans blocked a vote yesterday that would have ended the debate and allowed for a final decision one way or another. democrats fell just shy of the votes needed to advance the process. something president obama chalked up to partisan politics. >> there's nothing in the constitution that says that somebody should get 60 votes. there are only a handful of instances in which there's been any kind of filibuster of anybody for a cabinet position in our history. and what seems to be happening -- and this has been growing over time -- is the republican minority in the senate seem to think that the rule now is that you have
to be running the pentagon. >> sam? >> well, i slightly disagree with robert. >> i thought you might. >> you know, actually it's funny because some of these questions did produce interesting, illustrative answers. for instance, when ron johnson got hillary clinton to say what difference does it make? well, it does make a difference. the problem i found with the questions was they ended up stepping on the news. they became so demonstrative and so theatrical that they ended up stealing the spotlight from the answers. that did a disservice in some respects to the question. >> is the real story the feeder of the questions or hagel's fumbling performance? i think it's the latter. i think hagel had a dismal performance at that hearing. did he seem competent to run the pentagon? there were a lot of questions even among democrats after that hearing whether he's ready. >> i don't disagree with that. i think hagel had a really poor performance. what i'm saying is for these senators -- if you looked at what ted cruz was asking about, association with an israeli diplomat that basically 99.9% of the coun
former top pentagon official, and next, how close could that giant asteroid come to earth? just a little over an hour from now? look outside. this is "andrea mitchell reports" on only on msnbc. [ male announcer ] why is kellogg's crunchy nut so delicious? because every flake is double-toasted... splashed with sweet honey... and covered in rich double-roasted peanuts. mmm. [ hero ] yummy. [ male announcer ] kellogg's crunchy nut. it's super delicious! [ male announcer ] kellogg's crunchy nut. ( ♪ ) for those nights when it's more than a bad dream, be ready. for the days when you get a sudden call from the school, be ready. for the times you need to double-check the temperature on the thermometer, be ready. when you have children's motrin on hand, you're ready. for high fever, nothing works faster or lasts longer than children's motrin. be ready with children's motrin. this single scoop of gain gives more freshness than a whole box of this other stuff... and that much freshness is gonna take some getting used to... [ sniffing ] ahh. mmm! [ male announcer ] yep, it's amazing what a single
. >> there are an estimated 19,000 sexual assaults in the military each year. yet, according to pentagon officials, only a fraction of those incidents are reported. congress last investigated this issue almost a decade ago until now. new york senator kirsten gillibrand chairs the subcommittee on personnel and has just announced a hearing on march 13th where she will hear from victims of this growing epidemic for the first time. she joins me now. senator, thank you very much. tell me what you want to know about this epidemic really. continuing epidemic, mostly men on women. >> yeah. andrea, as you said, their estimated 19,000 sexual assaults a year in the military, but only a fraction are reported. about 2,400 were record last year, and of those only about 240 went to trial. >> away we really need is accountability and much more transparency. we need it to be a safe place for men and women to serve, and we need to show that we can protect the men and women that are searching in the military, so this hearing is going to shine a light on what the problem is, what are the solutions, and what needs to be don
to overthrow the assad regime. the plan had received support from the pentagon, the cia, secretary clinton. but ultimately it was the white house that turned down the idea. >> both of you agreed with petraeus and clinton that we should start looking at military assistance in syria, is that correct? >> that was our position. i do want to say, senator, that obviously there were a number of factors that were reversed here that ultimately led to the president's decision to make it nonlethal. i supported his decision in the end. but the answer to your question is yes. >> for both of you? >> yes. >> "the wall street journal" says the white house was concerned about which rebels could be trusted with arms. was also worried about the risk of drawing the united states into another military conflict. but it was questions over benghazi that led to the most heated moments with secretary panetta and general dempsey defending the administration's response to the deadly raid on the u.s. consulate. >> for you to testify that our posture would not allow a rapid response, our posture was not there because w
. they don't receive combat pay and it's absolutely ridiculous. so recently, the pentagon established that a woman that serves in combat is entitled to receive all of the things that go with it to show our country's appreciation. so it seems to me that if we're going to have a draft and i really believe that if we did have a draft set up that congress would not be so anxious to the democrats and republicans to put our young people in harm's way. >> tell me why you say that because you're introduced this legislation multiple times and it's clearly something you're very committed to. you bet your life because the people in the congress that allow these things to go on, they have no fear that anyone in their community and their families are going to be making any sacrifice at all. less than 1% of americans, most of whom volunteer for economic reasons paid the price in terms of 6600 lives lost, tens of thousands of people wounded. veterans, american veterans coming home, disoriented, unemploy unemployed, some homeless and no one pays a price. i submit to you, we would not be in iraq, afgh
're going to cut pretty significantly from the pentagon's budget. your move, mr. president. >> he wants revenues to go up again and john boehner's response is, we just did that. >> that's the thing. we always heard, you guys raise taxes, cut defense spending and then we will come back with a compromise on spending cuts. but, no, we raise taxes, we come forward with pentagon cuts and the president comes back with, we want to tax more americans. let's raise taxes again. >> you wonder where this ends now then, right, because if the president's not going to go anywhere without more revenue, where does this take us? we have the plan in place that was supposed to do both of those things. we're at that point on friday and we will hit it and neither side is going to get to it. what's the end game here. >> how do you think this is goin going? >> it's going terribly. >> republicans always lose these budget battles. i get a sense for the first time the president is overplaying his hand. talking about fear and loathing, locusts ascending from the heavens, now talking about more tax cuts, your dog w
is going to the other side. that said when he is in the pentagon and controls the military in that capacity, they will have to deal with him and have the same interest in common. both parties want to keep the u.s. strong and safe and chuck hagel has been through worse. believe me, he has seen much more incoming than at that hearing. >> republican strategist, good to see you. thank you. >> good to see you. >> still ahead on the saturday afternoon, the latest on the scandal around the top u.s. senator. first, on this date, an announcement that led to the moment so many had been calling for. eventually to the end of apartheid. you are watching msnbc the place for politics. but don't worry, he'll find someone else. ♪ who's that lady? ♪ who's that lady? ♪ sexy lady, who's that lady? [ female announcer ] swiffer 360 dusters extender cleans high and low, with thick all around fibers that attract and lock up to two times more dust than a feather duster. swiffer gives cleaning a whole new meaning. and now swiffer dusters refills are available with the fresh scent of gain. i just served my moth
's the complement of non -- of folks from the state department that we send? the relationship between the pentagon and the state department seems to have changed as well. how will he weigh in on that? >> yeah, those are good questions. i think if i could just take two examples. with syria and also with afghanistan, you have questions of where the united states has to figure out some next policy steps that are pretty big and get to the question you raise, the balance between troops possibly, between diplomatic advisers, development experts, cia operatives, and where policy in the case of afghanistan has to make some changes, but it's generally on a predetermined course but it's going to have to vary quite a bit because we're drawing down troops now. in syria i think what we have is a policy for all the good intentions hasn't really worked. and if i were secretary kerry, i would probably commission my best people to do a two to four-week study on fundamentally new options in syria. where i think the united states has to recognize that what it's been doing so far hasn't been adequate and yet the coun
immediate to both operate inside the pentagon, and that's -- you heard robert gibbs, former press secretary yesterday say it was a little disconcerting watching him give those answers. they made a strategic decision not to have a debate with those republican senators. trying to not start fights, but was he too passive? >> there was a way to push back. david sanger, he could have said i disagree with you about the surge. senator mccain, you're my great friend, but let's talk about what's really going on. we have 66,000 troops at afghanistan right now. he didn't pivot. he didn't push back. he didn't fight. david brooks, your columnist in "the "new york times"" suggested to chuck this weekend that he should even go so far as saying to the president, mr. president, do you have second thoughts? should i withdraw? that's rather more than i would have expected at this point. >> you know, i think there were two remarkable elements to the testimony that former senator hagel gave. he seemed unprepared on basic issues. we were discussing iran before. he had a difficult time even articulating the presi
at the pentagon. and by eric holder today. but eric holder seemed to be either conflating or combining imminent threat with ongoing threat. tell me about the memo itself. >> that is exactly the rub. they have -- it is certainly true that administration officials, all those you mentioned, have articulated that it is the bottom administration policy that targeted killings of americans who are associated with al qaeda are lawful and constitutional under certain conditions, and the first concern is that the individual poses an imminent threat of a violent attack against the united states. in other words, capture is not feasible, and the operation is done according to law or principles. what this memo does, which is not something that has been public, is flesh that out and provide details about what they mean by that, and one of those striking points is when they get to defining imminent threat. they talk about a broader -- the memo explicitly says that they have intelligence that the targeted individual is involved in an active plot against the united states. what they mean is that this individual
this command, cyber command, saying we have to defend our infrastructure, and the pentagon's infrastructure to be sure, and then we have to have capability. those kinds will help deter some of the activities taking place right now. >> i remember once interviewing a former french official who was in charge of the french intelligence operation against our splekt wal property and trade secrets, and he was very open about it as a retired espionage agent for france. thank you very much, bill cohen. >> good to be with you. >> up neck, fighting that cyber war, we talk to former homeland security chief michael cherthoff. up for an oscar and detained at the airport? you're watching "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc. commitment to the gulf. and every day since, we've worked hard to keep it. today, the beaches and gulf are open for everyone to enjoy. we've shared what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. bp's also committed to america. we support nearly two-hundred-fifty thousand jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to co
there starts to end. the headline news out of brussels today was a very terse statement from the pentagon spokesman. it was kind of strange. he was essentially clarifying, hey, whatever you heard from the germans earlier today, that was not true. this is the statement. the reports that the u.s. told allies that we are considering 8,000 to 12,000 u.s. troops after 2014 are not correct. a range of 8,000 to 12,000 troops was discussed, but it was discussed as the possible size of the overall nato mission, not the u.s. contribution. ah, important clarification. so the defense minister from germany had apparently told reporters that 8 to 12,000 troops was how many troops america was going to keep in afghanistan. everybody thought that was very big news since that's not what we heard hear at home at all. maybe that is how the german guy understood it, but it is apparently not the way that leon panetta meant it. that was the headline out of brussels today. those troops, that's nato combined, that's not just us. that was the headline. the other news of course was that representing the united stat
's pick to head up the pentagon. we will talk to bob carey about what all of that means. >> mr. president, we will stand and fight throughout this country as americans for our freedom. >> the gun rights groups say they are working to protect the second amendment so we are going to take a look at what rights the second amendment affords and which it does not. we start with developing news in florida where the white house confirmed that president obama teed off with golfing great tiger woods today. woods lives about an hour and a half from where president obama is vacationing. they will be on the course for several more hours of course. joining us on the course is tim rosaforte. you are at the resort with the president. what more can you tell us? >> the floridaen golf and react club in palm city, florida is where they played their round of golf. the president is visiting here through some friends of his in houston. he was introduced to the golf course and as a result of that has decided to take a golf buddies trip more than anything else. he took lessons from butch harmon and his son, claud
department after getting in a little bit of hot water after saying the pentagon was treating manning unfairly. three years later, what are your thoughts on him now? >> for a caveat, the formal trial has not begun, but there is a legal proceeding under way, you know, regarding the charges and a potential, you know, plea-bargain. so this is a very open and transparent legal process, so it's not as if he's being held without charge. that said, obviously, two years ago i was concerned that it was punitive confinement at quantico. eventually the army moved him to ft. leavenworth, and he received more suitable pretrial confinement which is consistent with, you know, our norps both in the military and civilian justice system. he stands accused of very serious crimes, and the legal case will get under way late they are spring. >> p.j. crowley, always a pleasure. thanks. >> all right, alex. >> still ahead, manti te'o meets the press. how did he handle the barrage of questions about that infamous hoax? ♪ [ male announcer ] were you more interesting in your twenties, or now? when you were starting out
there's so many installations of military and defense workers. the pentagon noted more than 700,000 civilian military workers, department of defense workers, will effectively lose 20% of their pay. they will have to work one less day a week if this goes in effect. as one observer put it, it's like a low speed car crash heading our way. >> peter alexander from 1600. peter, thank you, sir. >>> wednesday morning the supreme court will hear arguments in a case called shelby county versus holder. it's a case that could determine the future of the landmark voting rights act of 1965. to find out what's at stake, we're going to go ahead and take a reality check on this sunday. peter bacon an msnbc contributor and editor of the grio. let's start at the beginning, if you will, for folks not following the story perhaps. what's at stake here on wednesday? >> the key thing at stake here is this is a law -- this is 1965, that lays out basically for a lot of southern states, states that had a history of discrimination, they had -- the big portion is they have to usually pre-clear any law about
the sequester in a hurry, then yes, it's a real problem because it doesn't let the pentagon begin to plan and distribute, if you will, the cuts. but at the end of the day, whether it's defense spending, education spending, health spending, what always matters more than how much you spend is how you spend it. and so i'm not, at the end of the day, all that worried about how much we spend, whether it's on defense or anything else. you just want to have the time to make some intelligent cuts rather than have to make them literally in a matter of days which would probably mean that readiness more than anything else would be cut out of the defense department account. and that's probably the one thing you don't want cut out of it. >> sam stein, you're close and yet so far away over there at the jump seat. what are the odds that the sequester actually takes place? we know the president's proposed something to push them back a while. are we going to see these kind of cuts, the ones that were outlined in the sequester proposal? >> i think the odds are pretty high, to be honest. i don't think there
Search Results 0 to 27 of about 28 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)